The Curious Case of Opal Covey

When I moved back to Toledo a couple years ago, I had forgotten how much fun the mayoral elections can be. To help explain how the illustrious Carty Finkbeiner could keep getting elected, just look at the competition, including perennial candidate Opal Covey.

Recently Opal went on the radio to talk about her platform. It didn't go well. So she confronted the host about his sinful defiance of God's will that she must be mayor. Seriously. Just watch:

Another fun interview with her can be found here. Please watch this one to the end. You can thank me later.

These clips and her prophetic electoral history (four previous times she's been told by God she would be mayor, without success) raise a host of questions. The shenanigans on display here don't come about in a vacuum, and frankly what she's doing, while maybe more exuberant, is far too familiar.

1) Where are the people to defend her? Why is there no mention of this on charismamag.com or charismanews.com? She has a prophetic word from God and is being mocked and resisted - why don't they take up her cause? And lest you think this is just too far out there for them to defend, take a look at what they actively promote, and tell me how this is any different from, say, a typical Jennifer LeClaire piece.

2) Why is nobody proposing an "open but cautious" stance? How is it that we all instantly know this is total garbage, but with other 'prophecies' and 'tongues' we're supposed to wait and see because you never know? What, specifically, is the difference between this and the thousands of 'words from the lord' that will be spouted at charismatic churches this Sunday?

3) How is it that a talk radio host in Toledo, OH knows the simple equation that self-proclaimed prophet + false = false prophet, and he's not afraid to tell her so (even as she speaks in tongues against him!), but major evangelical leaders and theologians can't figure it out?

4) How is her schtick any different from what happens daily on TBN? How is she different from the New Apostolic Reformation or IHOP or Chuck Pierce or Patricia King or Benny Hinn or Pat Robertson or Bill Johnson or the Elijah List or Todd Bentley or...

5) Is it the William Tapley effect? As Chris Rosebrough often points out, William Tapley plays the same game as Robertson, Hagee, Cahn, and many others who rake in millions while he's a laughingstock. Why? They're slick and polished, while Tapley is... well, just watch his videos. Is that all that's at play here, why Opal Covey is a laughingstock while Bill Johnson has a global following and TBN rakes in cash by the billions? What exactly is different about her, other than the polish?

6) Note carefully the "I speak in tongues against you". Somehow tongues went from declaration of the wonders of God in understandable foreign language previously unknown to the speaker (Acts 2) to gibberish random syllables as a curse. In other words, from spiritual gift to witchcraft. Now, is that common practice in charismaticism? Before you answer, consider the word-faith theology of Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, and their ilk, the idea that you're a little god who creates the future through the power of your words. How is what she did any different?

7) While it's easy to dismiss her as crazy and disturbed, does she understand the implications of what she's saying better than many? Consider - she claims to have a prophecy that she will be mayor. Fred Lefebvre doesn't accept it and seems to work against it (by exposing her utter lack of qualifications). So she accuses him of the gross sin of opposing the work of god, and pronounces judgment on him. Because god told her she would be mayor, everyone who has heard the prophecy is morally bound to obey, and disobedience to her word is tantamount to disobeying god, liable to the fires of hell.

It all makes for a good laugh, except for one thing - if she actually received a real prophecy, her pronouncement would be 100% correct. She didn't, and she's a false prophet and blasphemer, but if it was actually a word from God, she would have been correct that opposing it is vile sin.

So why does this woman understand this, but so much of the church doesn't? How many pastors have an extrabiblical 'vision' they claim is God's revelation to them? How many projects are launched with no justification beyond "God put this on our hearts" or "God gave us a vision for this"? How often is "God is telling me..." or "God is leading me to..." tossed out in casual conversation, as if direct orders from the almighty creator are on the same level as a comment about the weather?

Why do we put up with this? How do we not understand - if Opal Covey can understand it, I'm sure it's not beyond our grasp - that a divine revelation morally binds all hearers, and to oppose it is sin? If they claim the message is God's word, no matter how soft they sell it, to disobey or fail to support it is direct rebellion against God himself - if it's actually from God. If it's not, and at this point in redemptive history we can safely say it's not, then they are sinning by taking God's name in vain, and they're false prophets.

When we let that kind of thing fester unopposed, a generation of Opal Coveys is the result.

Budgeting for Adults

I want to make a few points about the current chaos from Washington, but before I do, we need to be on the same page. So this will be sort of an Economics 101 - no, it's much more remedial than that, let's call it Economics 001. This is simply how an adult sets a budget, and the basic principles apply from the personal to the multi-trillion dollar level. This is stuff everyone should know, the sort of thing anyone who wants to be considered a grownup should have down, but, well, look around.

Essentials first. If you only had $100 this month, what would you spend it on? I reckon you'd probably make sure you have food before you have the latest UFC pay-per-view. Food: essential. Entertainment: non-essential.

What do you need? Make sure you have funds allotted for those things first. If you can't afford food/shelter/clothing because you bought Legos, you're a moron, no matter how cool those Legos may be.

Add luxuries in order of importance. Once the vitals are taken care of, add on everything else (and yes, everything non-essential is a luxury). If you had another $100, what would you do with it? Another $100 after that? And so on, until all your income is accounted for. It may be adding a new item, like getting cable. It could be increasing a previous allocation - bumping the food budget so you can go to a nice restaurant. It could be something non-immediate, like savings. Whatever is next-most-important, set aside the money for that.

Note that some categories are purely luxury, but some are a mix of essential and luxury. Food, for instance. The cost of subsistence-level food is essential; everything above that is luxury. A very great luxury to have, mind you, and one you would be wise to invest in quickly. But it's still non-essential.

When all the money is allocated, there is no more. If you have $50k in income, and $65k in allocated spending, u r doin it rong. If you don't have the money, you don't have the money. Either re-prioritize so it's paid for (which will require eliminating or cutting funds to something else) or learn to live without it for now.

That's it. Really. No matter what plan or technique you find, they all come down to this. Prioritize your needs/wants, and allocate funds in order of importance.

Now, let's take this ultra-basic principle and look at the government quasi-shutdown. What can we observe?

They keep using the word 'essential'. I do not think it means what they think it means. It's hard to believe everything 'non-essential' has been shut down when it's running at about 83% capacity (which is still at deficit, by the way). Would you believe 5/6 of your household expenditures are so essential that you can't cut so much as a penny from them? Yet somehow we're supposed to believe this about the government - they can't cut even a penny from these areas for even a few weeks!

So what makes something essential for the federal government? I would suggest several qualifications. (1) It must be a necessary function of a nation; that is, any nation which lacks it is not a nation at all. Examples include the ability to make, execute, and adjudicate laws, and the ability to repel attacks. (2) It must be necessary that this function is performed at the federal level. If state or local governments (or private entities) can do it, it's not essential for the federal government.

Which means that a whole host of programs, departments, and agencies are non-essential luxuries. Some are nice to have, but not necessary for the survival of a nation. Some could just as easily be done at lower levels of government. Even some things we like, like Defense, are a blend of essential and luxury (we may be willing to pay for the luxury of everything above survival-level military, but let's at least be honest that it is a luxury). Some programs are so utterly non-essential, they don't just need a temporary partial shutdown, they need to go away entirely.

When money is short, you cut the least important things first. If you don't have enough one month, you don't buy the Eddie Rabbit tickets while your kids go without food. The most important things are the first to get funded and the last to get cut, and the first things to get cut are the least important. At least if you're an adult, anyway.

If you want to know what politicians value, look at what they threaten to cut first if they don't get more money. Locally it's always liberals threatening to cut police, firefighters, teachers, and hospitals, which I guess means they consider them almost completely unnecessary. Now look at what Obama and his cronies have decided to cut first vs what remains instact, and tell me what he values. Many 'cuts' have been to programs that actually provide some benefit to the public, and the 'cuts' have often cost more than full operation, which would seem odd for a shutdown except that a petulant child is in charge. Which brings me to the last point.

If you are in a financial crunch, and your instinct is to spend more money to antagonize the people who pay the bills, you are despicable. Not that anyone would ever stoop so low, of course.

Honor and Disagreement

Election night, about three seconds after my Facebook news feed lit up with the bad news, this article showed up in my Google Reader feed. (Yes, I still use an RSS reader. So what?) There were countless others like it, but that's the one I bothered to read, so it's the one I'll interact with.

First off, I don't totally disagree with anything in the article itself. We can debate whether that should have been the very first thing to write about - this election was a total disaster and will have horrible consequences, and it wouldn't have hurt to spend a little time lamenting that. But as far as the truth - yeah, it's all correct. We are unequivocally called to honor the President, just as Peter exhorted his readers to honor the emperor even as he was lighting them on fire. Let's face it - as bad as I believe this is, and as bad as it's going to get, it's tough to say we have it as bad as Nero's victims.

Let's not pretend we're exempt from the numerous commands to honor those in earthly authority over us. Someone else's sin never excuses my own. So this brings a dilemma - how do we honor someone in authority over us with whom we vehemently disagree? And this applies not just to government officials - how do you honor your parents, your employer, your church, when they do something you disagree with, especially if it's outright sinful?

The answer, as it usually isn't, is not "balance". As in, "we need to balance speaking the truth with honoring them". The big problem with balance is that it requires two things to be in opposition. Here's a hint - if God unequivocally commands two things, they are not in opposition. They are to be obeyed always, fully, simultaneously. We don't have to decide when to be full of grace and when to be full of truth. Grace always, and truth always. Same thing here - always honor whom honor is due, and always stand for what is right. The question is not how to balance them, but how to do both simultaneously.

This is where I throw it to you, dear readers. Here's your assignment (for the next four years): how do we object to sin without sinning ourselves? What does it practically look like to stand against the sinful (or unwise) actions of those in authority over us, while giving them the honor God says they are due?

There are numerous Biblical examples we can consider. The apostles before the Sanhedrin or Roman authorities repeatedly throughout Acts, Daniel and friends serving pagan kings (and pronouncing judgment on them!), John the Baptist confronting Herod, Nathan confronting David, and many other prophets standing against kings of Israel and Judah come to mind. So pick an example, and tell us how he stood for righteousness without tarnishing his witness through sinful action or attitude.

What This Result Means

We've had almost a week for the election to sink in. Here are some thoughts.

First, read this and this. And you should probably read something like this, too. Today we'll interact with and expand the first two, God willing we'll look at the third in the next few days.

Now, a lot of the post-election analysis has focused on changing demographics and messaging and blah blah blah. This won't be any of that. I just want to look big-picture. The way we voted sends a message about us - what did it say? The following are numbered for convenience, not necessarily priority:

1. The noetic effect of sin is real and powerful.

2. We looked at disasters like Greece and Spain and Argentina, and said "We want us some of that!"

3. When teetering over the cliff of economic ruin, we want nothing to do with someone who specializes in bringing businesses back from the brink of ruin, and trust everything to someone who has never made a serious attempt to pass a budget and admits to struggling with his personal finances.

4. When Vladmir, Hugo, Los Bros Castros, Mahmoud, and others who want to see our nation severely weakened openly beg us to vote for one candidate, we oblige.

5. Being caught on a live mic arranging with a hostile foreign nation to do something which will almost certainly greatly weaken your own country? Meh.

6. We are just fine with injustice such as racism, sexism, and class warfare, so long as we perceive that our particular group may be favored. We never bother to consider that if injustice currently favors us, it can just as easily be turned around to oppress us.

7. The cries for statism/oppression emanating from the filth-ridden rape camps and riots of the Occupy Useful Idiot malcontents are much better received than the peaceful requests for constitutionally-guaranteed freedom from the peaceful, civil Tea Party rallies.

8. Whether or not to kill unborn children is not a moral issue. It's merely a preference, similar to what toppings to put on your burger.

9. If a rebellion is beginning in a radical Islamist state that is one of the greatest threats to us and the world, sit back and do nothing, and watch the people get slaughtered. If a rebellion led by radical Islamists begins in an allied or fairly neutralized Middle Eastern state, aid the rebels any way possible, including arming them. Do this, and you will be re-elected (unlike 1980).

10. Be shocked when the radical Islamists attack us with the weapons we gave them. Abandon Americans including an ambassador and Navy Seals to horrible deaths at the hands of the Islamists. Make the Seals believe they have air support, but order the air support not to fire, so they expose themselves and die. Lie about the attack for several weeks, pretending it was a spontaneous protest over a video nobody ever saw (as if that makes it OK for some reason). Send the SS on a midnight raid to arrest an American because of the lie. Mock the father of the dead Seal at his funeral. Go ahead, we don't care.

11. We like our leaders to go around the world talking about how awful we are.

12. We really don't mind if you give a bunch of weapons to Mexican drug cartels with the intent of having them commit crimes with them. We don't even care when they murder people, including border agents, in America.

13. We think that "you have the right to use a product" and "someone else must pay for it" are equivalent.

14. We're not even the least bit ashamed of wanton covetousness.

15. We don't care if our situations are terrible, just so long as you promise to make someone else miserable, too.

16. Government dependence is a stronger addiction than any chemical addiction. There's no methodone clinic that can blast it out of us. The antidote is a combination of "good theology of vocation" coupled with "work ethic" and "valuable skills". But why bother, when we can just vote for someone to take stuff from someone who worked for it and give it to us?

17. We are immune to concepts like "history" and "math" and "long-term thinking". We think there's no limit to how much money is out there to be taken from rich people and eeeeevil corporations, and therefore the gravy train will never ever ever ever end.

18. We see no correlation between producing value and being paid.

19. We believe that companies exist to employ people. Whether they make a profit is completely irrelevant. No, wait - profits are not irrelevant, they're positively evil.

20. We frequently complain about even the simplest transactions involving the government. We have no problem giving the government complete control over the most important aspects of our lives.

21. We believe it is the government's job to legislate morality, so long as that morality is immoral.

22. We cannot wait for systematic persecution of Christians to begin full-force.

23. We believe that when the government fails spectacularly and creates problems, the solution is more power for the government.

24. All those people who risked their lives to flee this garbage? Ha! Joke's on you!

25. We are perfectly happy if we lose our jobs, as long as our employers take a big financial hit.

26. We could run a grand experiment. Let's divide much of the world into two roughly equal camps (in terms of population and resources). Each camp will implement a governing philosophy diametrically opposed to the other. We can run this experiment for a good long time - say, about eight decades - and see Group 1 overwhelmingly triumph economically, socially, in terms of freedom and opportunity and all manner of human accomplishment. We'll watch in awe as Group 2 completely crumbles. We'll gaze in amazement as Group 2 nations begin to embrace Group 1 principles, even to the smallest degree imaginable, and watch their economies flourish. We'll watch as Group 1 nations dabble more and more with Group 2 principles, inevitably begin to falter, and see those that are serious rush headlong back to Group 1 to save themselves. In the end, we'll have a full century of worldwide data of the total superiority of Group 1 over Group 2. And then we'll vote to be part of Group 2.

Option C Doesn't Exist

And now, a parable-ish-type thing.

A woman lives in a culture which features arranged marriages, and in January of next year she will be getting married. Two men have been selected as possible husbands; one of them would be the default winner, but if she appeals to the elders, the alternate will be chosen.

Now the alternate - well, he's nothing special. Kind of bland, not particularly exciting, he has some weird things about him, and some stuff in his past that's actually pretty bad. He'd be an OK husband, I guess, but nothing special. Just kinda meh.

The favorite, on the other hand, is a real standout - and not in a good way. He has promised that if he is chosen, he'll do all manner of horrible things to her. He's threatened the most horrific abuses imaginable (and some you can't imagine), and when he gets bored with that, he'll kill her.

What should this woman do? If she says nothing, she will be forced to marry the utterly horrible one. If she requests, she would be allowed to marry the not-great-but-might-be-OK one. If those are the only two choices, the smart thing to do is obviously to go with the tolerable one.

Well, how about other options? How about if she says she really wants to marry some other guy who is, she thinks, absolutely perfect in every way and can do no wrong? Sorry - Mr Dreamboat didn't get past the first round of nominations. The village elders have made it clear he won't be it. Begging for him will be inseparable from a vote for the utterly horrible one.

How about just leaving? Maybe, but a quick look at the other villages around and she decides against it. She can't find any place that's significantly better, and most are almost unspeakably worse.

So there are the four options. To wit:
1) Refuse to participate, maybe make noise about leaving - and wind up married to the horrible one.
2) Insist on marrying the fantasy man - and wind up marrying the horrible one.
3) Agree to marry the horrible one, and get it.
4) Ask for the tolerable one, and get him.

There's only one choice a thinking adult could make. It would make no sense to insist on some high-minded principles if it leaves her married to the sleazeball who will abuse and kill her. It's childish and foolish to so completely pine for what-can-never-be that you surrender any say over what will actually be.

Can't Someone Else Do It?

And now for something completely different. Consider the following two statements:

A) I am free to use a product
B) Someone else must provide that product for me

Does B necessarily follow from A? No, of course not, that's ridiculous. But the idea that it does forms the foundation of numerous Democrat talking points. Whether the product is birth control, post-secondary education, medical care, housing, food, or whatever the cause du jour will be tomorrow, the product is claimed as a right - and anyone who doesn't want to provide it for you can be accused of denying you that right.

Now a half-second's thought would be enough to reveal the super-secret solution to this problem: just pay for it yourself. But a half-second's thought would be more than enough to dissuade anyone from even considering voting for Obama, and we saw how that worked out. What they're banking on is the unthinking response to Homer Simpson's impassioned campaign rhetoric of "Can't someone else do it?" They expect that we've sunk to Springfieldian levels, so that we'll expect to receive every good thing we want, while someone else has to do all the work. Sadly, based on the population of Occupy Useful Idiotville, they may very well be right.

But that's all introduction. As I was thinking about this idea, I came to another realization. Consider the following two parallel statements:

A) I am free to progress in sanctification
B) Someone else must do all the work for me

That's right. Keswick Theology is the Obama-voter of the Christian world.

A Few Quick Airline Security Questions

I'm sure we've all heard about the new strict 'security' measures that popped up in airports over the last half a year or so. In most cases, to get on a plane now, you must first go through a new type of X-ray machine, using 'backscatter radiation'. Of course we've been assured it's perfectly safe, although since they've already been caught lying about the amount of radiation absorbed, a fair amount of skepticism is not unreasonable. You're given the chance to 'opt out' of this radiation detection, but to do so, you may be required to submit to a sexual assault by a government agent.

Of course, this is absolutely necessary for national security, and if even one passenger gets through without a full-body X-ray or a molestation, it will be awful beyond imagination. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling. Forty years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes, the dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria! Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light. Total protonic reversal. Yeah, it's that bad.

Except, not.

See, there are a few things that undermine this little story, including a few anecdotes from our recent vacation. First, not all airports are equipped with the full-body X-rays. Second, before the flight out, we axed the agent whether the radiation was safe for my pregnant wife. He just had us go through the normal metal detector, no X-rays or sexual assault required. Third, on the way back, the security line was insanely long, causing flight delays as passengers couldn't get to their flights. So they shut down the backscatter radiation machines, suspended the molestations, and just rushed a bunch of us through the normal security.

Now...

If the new, tight security measures are actually necessary, why would they ever, even for one passenger, suspend the measures? Why, if they are necessary, are there entire airports where they are not in place at all, ever? Why, if they are necessary, would the measures be suspended for an entire terminal at LaGuardia, just to get the line down to a more manageable level? Or if they're necessary, why would they be suspended around Thanksgiving in order to short-circuit any possible protests?

Maybe it's just me, but maybe these types of things might, just a little, possibly, show that the official line about them being absolutely necessary is a total lie.

See, here's the thing. There are certain things that are actually necessary - and you never go without them. In air travel, for example, it is necessary to have enough fuel to make it to your destination. You wouldn't dream of taking off with only half the fuel you need, just because passengers might be complaining about the delays. It is necessary that the wings be properly attached. Sure, it may be inconvenient to switch planes just because one little wing might fall off, but, well, you know, you probably shouldn't risk it, just in case.

To sum: if it's actually necessary, you don't do without it. If you ever do without it, it's not necessary. And this 'enhanced security' garbage is most definitely not necessary.

A Politimical Aside - Taxes

Since today is tax day and all, I figured I would throw out my crazy two-step solution to many of the problems in our tax/political system. Overspending, budget woes, abuse of the tax code for social engineering/punishment? Two simple steps can make a major dent in these issues and more. The first idea I hear fairly often, the second I don't recall hearing many rants about. Here goes.

1) Move tax day back six months, to October 15. Keep elections the first week of November. Anyone need the logic of this one spelled out? I've heard numerous people recommend this or something similar (move elections to late April) over the years, but by itself it wouldn't be nearly as effective as you would think. I suggest adding the second step to really keep them in line...

2) End backup withholding. Depending on how you look at it, backup withholding is either truly brilliant or devious. I believe that this, more than any other single factor, has allowed tax rates to rise to the current ridiculous levels without the wrath of the electorate being unleashed. Consider the following two cases:

Person A makes $5000 a month, or $60,000 a year. Every three months, he writes the government a check for $3000 (by April 15, he must have paid the government a total of $12,000).
Person B also makes $5000 a month, or $60,000 a year. He has taxes withheld at a 25% rate ($1250), taking home $3750 a month. Every year around April 15, he gets a check from the government for $3000.

Both of these people earn the same income, and pay the same net taxes. However, their feelings about their tax bills will be completely different. When it's time for A to do his taxes, he will be rather upset at having to write such a large check. When B does his taxes, however, he'll most likely be thrilled to be 'getting' so much money from the government. He has grown used to living on the smaller take-home amount (smaller than A, who takes it all home but has to set aside the 20% for taxes), and while he may see how much is withheld from his paycheck, it lacks the emotional sting of having the money, then having to write the check and send it away. Plus he has come to see the tax refund as a gift of the benevolent government (don't ya know how much the generous IRS is stimulating the economy by giving your money back?), and sadly many view the tax refund as a sort of savings account!

People in category A include those who have to file quarterlies (small business owners, self-employed, etc); they get their money without withholding, but have to set it aside to cover the tax bill. Shockingly, these people tend to be the most upset at tax increases - and since they are generally society's producers, they also are the target of the taxes. Category B people are generally less upset at tax increases, having been conditioned to the lower take-home pay and the 'gift' of a refund, the repayment of an interest-free, mandatory loan to Uncle Sam.

End backup withholding and put tax day and election day close together, and not only will tax rates drop, but absurd spending (such as the government-funded Ponzi schemes) will be dramatically and immediately reduced, as elected officials will finally be held to account for every dollar they waste.

Just One Eyewitness

Here in Illinois, we're getting ready to start what seems like an annual tradition. No, not welcoming an influx of crybaby legislators from neighboring states when their governors want to govern like actual adults - that's not quite a tradition yet. What I'm talking about is the upcoming trial, or re-trial, of one of our criminal former governors.

For those who've lost track of which Illinois politician is on trial when, this time it's Rod Blagojevich, back on trial for a couple dozen corruption charges. Honestly, I sort of miss having him as governor. His replacement is just as incompetent and ideologically absurd, but he's just plain boring. Blago had sort of a Jerry Springer appeal, where you were bound to pay attention to see what insanity would happen next. If you're going to be a lousy governor, at least be interesting, right?

Anyway, at the last trial, Blago was convicted on only one of twenty-some charges. What was the big problem with the prosecution's case that allowed him to avoid conviction on so many charges? Many observers pointed to the lack of a compelling eyewitness. There was plenty of evidence, but it was piecemeal and largely circumstantial, and in the end it failed to convince at least one holdout juror. There was no smoking gun, no single person who could explain "this is what they did and how they did it" from planning to consummation. It's fairly safe to say the prosecutors would have traded hundreds of hours of phone tap recordings for just one credible eyewitness who knew everything and could report what was done.

I can't help but think of how different attitudes are towards eyewitness testimony when it comes to the creation of the world.

Suppose you would like to know about the how the universe came to be. Wouldn't it be nice if there had been someone there to observe it - more than that, to actually do it - who was willing to share his completely trustworthy firsthand account? Oh, there is? Huh. Doesn't it seem odd, then, that so many despise his account of the event, particularly those who claim to be devoted to him? I'd like to make a crazy suggestion - since we have the clear testimony of the only possible witness, one who cannot lie, we might want to believe him.

Ah, Toledo, How I Miss Thee

Living in the Chicago area has been a non-stop barrage of government so bad you sometimes can't tell the difference between corruption and incompetence. You have former governors in prison or awaiting trial. You have multiple suburbs voting overwhelmingly to leave Cook County and form our own, followed by the board president calling us uneducated ingrates who just don't understand how much they do for us (so far the list of things I've come up with is "collecting our taxes" and "????").

Recently the fun story has been Chicago leasing control of all the parking meters to a private company, a deal that was rammed through with less than two days of debate and before anyone really knew what it entailed (there's been a lot of that going in lately, it seems). They had a budget deficit of roundabouts $150 million, so they sold off control of the parking meters for a payment of $1.2 billion. Sound great, right? Sure, until you find out that the lease is for 75 years, or an average of $16 million per year. With approximately 36,000 meters in Chicago (so I hear - haven't been able to find an official count), that works out to $444 per meter per year, or just over a dollar per meter per day. Lemme put it this way: before this deal, a lot of the meters downtown were already at $3 per hour (other parts of the city were obviously less), and they were continually packed. Even without maintenance costs, they're taking way, way less than they would've made by holding on. The inspector general released a report saying as much, estimating that the market value for this lease was at least double what was settled on. So one of the aldermen responsible went on the radio to defend the lease (audio I would love to have right about now), and he made two very salient points. It doesn't matter how much money we're giving up long-term because we gots billz to pay now. And we really shouldn't matter how this will affect the city long-term, because none of us will be around by the end of the lease. Well, thanks for clearing that up! Oh, and did we mention that the mayor's nephew just happens to work for the company that bought the lease and stands to make millions in bonuses? Just a coincidence, no doubt.

So just when I start to think it can't get any more ridiculous, it's always good to see my former home Toledo make the national news. Because nobody, I mean nobody, can top the combo of incompetent, corrupt, and just plain crazy that is mayor Carty Finkbeiner. Just watch, and pray your mayor doesn't get any similar stupid ideas. (Which is worse - using garbage men to write illegal tickets, or using workers for a voter fraud and extortion organization to conduct a census?)

One more that isn't so much about bad Toledo government, but it did make the national news, so here you go. So a house is on fire, and the firement can't get into it because of a pitbull guarding it. The good news is it only took a few minutes to get past, but any delay if there was someone inside is too much. If it's me, I'm letting the pit bull drink from the fire hose, and be done with it (bonus vids: here and here). But that would no doubt upset the PETA folks (not the good ones from People for Eating Tasty Animals (keep being awesome), the insane ones), and pointing out that they could've used the axe instead or just shot the dog wouldn't satisfy them. But then again, I'm the crazy type that values human life, so what do I know?

More evidence that we're doomed

Today my drive home took a bit over an hour. I kept checking to a local news/talk radio station to see which stories they'd be discussing. So many interesting topics to choose from, what would it be?

Would they talk about the major upheaval in Iran, where the masses are possibly a step away from undoing Carter's folly, and kicking out the suicidal/genocidal mullahs? Where violent oppression has come to the fore, and new media has allowed the story to get out despite government censorship? Would they talk about how the mullahs grossly erred in rigging the 'election' (with 125% voter turnout, and 40 million votes counted in an hour by hand!) for Ahmadinejad, when all of the candidates were their puppets anyway, and the 'reformer' Mousavi is every bit as genocidally anti-Semitic as Ahmadinejad and only a hair's breadth away from him on most other issues? How the mullahs overplayed their hand in a pointless show of power for only marginal gain? How the Supreme Leader has issued edicts that are being blatantly disobeyed for the first time in decades? Or perhaps discussing what, if any, role the US should play in this uprising that could drastically alter the face of the Middle East?

Or maybe a little something about North Korea. You know, the ones that recently test-fired an ICBM over Japan, and our response was to cry to the UN, who warned Kim Jong Il to stop, or else. Or else what? Or else we will be very angry with you, and we will write you a nasty letter saying just how angry we are! Predictably, several weeks later they did an atomic test, detonating a nuke roughly the size of the ones that Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Oh, and then they threatened to obliterate Seoul. Then they threatened to nuke Hawaii on July 4th, which they apparently have the capability to do now. And then Kim Jong Il appointed a son as his successor, as if he's ready to go out in a blaze of glory. Then they quite possibly loaded a ship full of nuclear material and missile parts and are planning to send it to destination unknown, a move that actually got the US to publicly respond, and may lead to a serious escalation any moment. Perhaps they would talk about something along those lines.

Or maybe they'd go economic, seeing as how we're still in a world-wide recession (which, as much as people try to blame it on us, actually hit Europe several months earlier and much harder, but I digress). Maybe something on the recklessly high deficits Bush and the Republicans (and Democrats the last two years) ran up, leading to their ouster, and how the Democrats led by Obama have about quadrupled that already. Or the insane amount of nationalization that has taken place already, so much so that Hugo Chavez is joking to Fidel Castro that Obama is making them look conservative by comparison. (Let that one sink in for a minute. Ready? OK.) And now in the midst of this, despite claiming that we're already out of money, he wants to spend another hundred billion or so to provide health insurance (NOTE: not health care. There is a huge difference between health insurance and health care. Much of the debate on this issue is clouded by people confusing/blending the two, which is almost certainly intentional.) for less than half of the uninsured (even when you remove illegals from the 'uninsured' totals), at a cost more than double what it would be to just buy a health insurance plan for them from a current provider. And a massive debate is raging over which proposed reforms to enact, most of which will almost certainly lead to the eventual nationalization of over 1/6th of the economy. Or perhaps they'd talk about the media's role in this, since one of the four largest 'independent' networks is planning to devote Wednesday to a day-long infomercial promoting the President's health insurance reform agenda, complete with refusal to acknowledge any dissenting viewpoints. (Note the contrast with Iran, where people are risking their lives to get the word out about what their state-run media isn't telling.) Surely there's something interesting there to talk about?

Or maybe they'd go for more local news. Like how the mayor of Chicago had for years refused to commit to a financial guarantee for the Olympics, then last week changed his mind and offered the completely non-corrupt IOC a blank check signed by the taxpayer. Or how yet another Alderman was arrested on corruption charges. Or how our new governor is furiously campaigning to raise taxes, because when you've got a budget deficit, the only thing you can do is raise revenue. (Oh wait, there is another option, but... nah, that would never work.) Or perhaps something more about our lovely Senator Burris, who somehow will not be charged with perjury for lying under oath and changing his story, let's see, I think he's on story number eight now. Or Senator Durbin, who was in a meeting last year before the horrible, awful bailouts were enacted, where they were being discussed. Immediately after leaving the meeting wherein specific troubled firms were discussed as being on the verge of failure despite public news to the contrary, the honorable senator sold all his stock in these firms, saving himself six-figure losses based on insider information. You may think that sounds like insider trading, but you'd only be right if you were a textbook trying to provide a clear example of insider trading, or maybe a dictionary trying to define it. But not if you were, say, a Senator, or perhaps the justice department of the same party's administration who would be tasked with investigating such a thing.

So with all this potential news to choose from - Iran, North Korea, the economy, the nationalization of ABC, the health insurance debate, local issues and corruption on a scale that makes New Orleans jealous, plus many other local and interesting stories - it could be really hard to choose what to talk about. There's just so much rich stuff there, what to choose, what to choose. So what did they talk about the entire hour?

Apparently some guy named Perez Hilton, who is famous for something or other, got into a fight with someone from the Black Eyed Peas, who were last heard from every twelve seconds during the 2004 NBA playoffs.

We're doomed.

Veritable Bouillabaisse

The first in an occasional series in which I throw a few short items together when I don't feel like writing anything long or deep.

*** Recently, on a tip from Frank Turk, I read through the book What He Must Be ...If He Wants To Marry My Daughter. Sometime around page 12 or so, it was clear we'd be loaning it out to other people who need to read it. After further reflection, that turned into buying additional copies to get it into necessary hands more quickly. So you might be able to gather that I liked it and thought it was insanely useful. Very, very challenging stuff.

As you might be able to tell from the title, the book is a guide to help fathers screen potential suitors for their daughters - the non-negotiable traits he absolutely must have if he's going to be allowed to pursue her. But with just a little reflection, it's clear that the book would be useful for plenty of other types of people. For example, single men who need to develop these qualities. Single women who should know what to look for. Married men who can see where they're falling short. Women who are mentoring younger women. Folks in youth ministry, students and leaders alike. Basically anyone who could potentially date or is in a position to influence such a person. So go buy it - in fact, buy two and give one away to someone who needs it.

*** You may have heard about this thing going around called "swine flu". Excuse me, H1N1 A or whatever it's called now. A few days ago, The Obama apparently called it that in a press conference I didn't watch, and the next day I heard a bunch of news people calling it that, so I figured they were just being butt-kissing lapdogs as usual. Well, they probably still are, but eventually I heard one of them explain the change from the simple, common name to its unwieldy laboratory designation: apparently a lot of people - in spite of repeated announcements to the contrary - thought you could get it from eating pork, so they were boycotting pork products.

This is, quite frankly, an idiotic reason to change the name. A bunch of people can't be bothered to read all the way to the second paragraph of a news story, or listen for more than eight seconds, to get the information that's clearly being told, and they foolishly overreact? So why, exactly, are we supposed to accommodate them? Listen - if someone is stupid enough to give up bacon without even doing the three seconds worth of research it would take to show that such a move is unnecessary, they deserve to go without bacon. It's a harsh penalty, I know, but stupidity must have consequences. Besides, the decrease in demand would drive the price of pork down. Which means those of us who actually pay attention would be able to buy cheap bacon! I say we keep calling it "swine flu" until the price is low enough to justify buying a separate freezer just to hold all the bacon I'd buy.

But under my plan, those who take the initiative to be well-informed, make wise decisions, and act responsibly would benefit, while those who are ignorant, moronic, utterly short-sighted, and rush unthinkingly into bad decisions would miss out. And that simply can't happen in today's America!

*** Occasionally I'll read something in the Bible that brings up a mental image that I can't help but laugh at. Sometimes it's just a case of unfamiliarity with ancient ritual, where something that'd be perfectly obvious to the original readers is not explained, so that when it's read today it sounds sort of funny. Such was the case when I read through Numbers recently, and came to a section with a wave offering. Best I can tell, a wave offering was generally part of a larger offering. The priest would take a prescribed part of the animal (for example, a ram shoulder for the Nazirite vow closing), pick it up, and wave it. So imagine my surprise when I read this in Numbers 8:

⁵And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ⁶"Take the Levites from among the people of Israel and cleanse them... And you shall bring the Levites before the tent of meeting and assemble the whole congregation of the people of Israel. ¹⁰When you bring the Levites before the LORD, the people of Israel shall lay their hands on the Levites, ¹¹and Aaron shall offer the Levites before the LORD as a wave offering from the people of Israel, that they may do the service of the LORD... ¹³And you shall set the Levites before Aaron and his sons, and shall offer them as a wave offering to the LORD.

Alrighty then. So was the elderly Aaron supposed to pick up each of these 8500-odd men and wave them in the air? I suppose it's possible, but... I'm guessing there's something about this ancient ritual that I just don't see, but it made perfect sense back then. Still, the image of Aaron picking up each of these thousands of grown men, and waving them around, well, it amuses me.

*** Today I finally started reading the latest John Piper book, Finally Alive. I'm only in the introduction, and already it's been totally worth it. Makes me wonder why I went so long since the last time I read a Piper book. It's about what it means to be born again - the real, Biblical use of the term, not the shallow, pathetic perversion of the term common today. The little vignette wherein he takes the Barna research group to task for their horrible handling of the term "born again" is simply must-read. I have a feeling this is going to be well worth reading.

Oh, and I should also mention that last week we went to see Piper and Don Carson give a little seminar on the intersecting interests of the pastor and scholar. My theory is, whenever you get a chance to go see one of these guys teach, it's probably going to be worth it. If they're both speaking, it's a safe bet that it'll be extraordinarily edifying, challenging, intellectually stimulating, and worshipful. Perhaps I shall write about that event soon. Perhaps.

*** Just checked my RSS not too long ago, and saw this post (follow the links there to his earlier posts - they're all good, and I've probably linked them before). It's commentary on an interview Christianity Today did with Rob Bell to pimp his newest book, during part of which Bell is asked to explain the gospel. The article's title: "Not the Gospel of Jesus. Not Anywhere Near It." That really sums it up quite well - much of the interview was downright nauseating, but the supposed gospel presentation was beyond terrible, being something any New Age spiritualist or TM guru could easily affirm, albeit with one oblique reference to Jesus. Yet another opportunity to ask: how exactly is this guy considered a Christian leader? What am I missing exactly? How can anyone read his stuff without klaxons blaring and red warning lights flashing?

Random Thought

By the time they're done, who will have told more different versions of their stories - Roland Burris or Alex Rodriguez? I currently have it at Burris 4, A-Rod 3.

Schwarzenegger and the Emergent Church

Hey, did you know we just had some elections? If so, you probably heard that the Republicans got smoked. Lost the presidency, bigger deficit in the House, and thiiiiis close to not even having the theoretical threat of a filibuster in the Senate. One of the main questions that naturally arises is: where do they go from here?

The governor of California, Mr. Arnold Schwarzenegger, had some comments on this during an interview with Brian Kilmeade. (Unfortunately, the clips I could find online didn't have him saying it, only Kilmeade relaying the quote. It's part 2 of the interview, during the closing 30 seconds or so.) The Terminator says that for the Republicans to return to power, "they should move away from some of their core principles, those conservative principles, and start spending on programs Americans want." I find this response fascinating because of how it relates to current (and historical) ideas in the church. But before getting to that, there are at least two problems I see with it.

First, as many have pointed out, his prescription is largely how the Republicans got into this problem in the first place. This would be more than a post of its own (I'm sure there are a few books detailing it), but suffice to say that the mere existence of the term RINO (Republican In Name Only) shows much of the problem. These guys speak the conservative message to get elected, then govern like liberals. Unconscionably high spending is but one symptom. They just nominated the most "moderate" Republican in decades and he got destroyed. I could go on and on, but suffice to say, I don't think that becoming more liberal in a country that is largely conservative is a recipe for success.

But there's an even more fundamental problem with this idea. You would hope that these guys are conservatives because they believe that the conservative worldview is the best way to govern. They believe that these principles are the best thing for the nation, for the states, for the individual people living under that authority. They are convinced that if these principles are enacted, the country will benefit; if liberal policies are enacted, the country and its people will suffer.

Given that, here is a rough paraphrase of Ahnold's vision. "You believe that conservative principles are the best way to govern the country - best for the nation, best for the people. But you may have a better shot of getting elected if you abandon those principles. So you should intentionally do what you believe to be detrimental to the nation and harmful to people, so that you can have more power."

Am I the only one who has a problem with this? How could someone even think about doing such a thing in good conscience? If one truly holds that his view is beneficial and the opposing view is harmful, how ghastly must he be to change positions just to get into power? What Ah-nold is suggesting as the future for Republicans is utterly reprehensible (at least, it is for the actual conservatives in the party - for the RINO's it'd actually be a refreshing bout of honesty).

To see just how ridiculous this is, take one of the pet liberal causes and suggest the same thing. Think back to 2000, when the Republicans have just won the presidency and clean majorities in both houses. The Democrats were no doubt searching for ideas to get back into power. Imagine someone suggested in all seriousness: "You know, we believe that a woman has a fundamental right to abortion without restriction or negotiation. But the R's oppose abortion, and they're kicking our butts. So maybe we should switch sides on this issue, oppose abortion, and maybe then we'll win more elections." Is it even possible to imagine this conversation happening? Would it not be absurd for them to take a core value and speak/work/govern in opposition to it in order to win elections? Yet here is a prominent Republican, suggesting in all seriousness that this is not only a viable option, but their only choice. Unfortunately, there's no sign he was joking (and based on the way he's governed, he's quite serious).

In the political arena, this idea is an absolute joke. How could someone even think of abandoning core principles like that in order to be more popular or powerful? If someone could even consider this, would it not show that he doesn't really believe that position and/or doesn't consider it very important? Or if he does really believe it, and believes it to be highly significant, yet is willing to oppose it for personal gain, how utterly despicable would that person be?

But enough about politics. Hopefully it's obvious why such an idea - abandoning core principles to have better "success" - is either ridiculous or reprehensible in the political arena. But how about in the church? Would the foolishness/wickedness not be exponentially greater, since the issues at stake are of eternal significance?

And yet, this is a constant refrain within the church today. The culture is postmodern, we are told, and so the church must embrace postmodernism. People don't like truth claims, so we need to stop saying the Bible is true. People are offended by talk of sin and hell, so we need to stop talking about them. They don't want doctrine, so we need to forget about that and just tell stories (from which they can make their own meaning). We need to stop preaching the gospel and just meet their felt needs. People don't like hearing about the exclusivity of Christ, so we need to pretend all paths lead to God. And if we do these things, our churches will be full and we'll have all kinds of influence!

This nonsense is coming most strongly today from the emerg* camp - Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Doug Pagitt, etc - who claim we need to abandon Christianity and embrace postmodernism (or a pomo/Christian syncretism). A century ago the claim was that the church needed to embrace modernism. Before that... It seems there's no worldview so anti-Christian that the church hasn't been told - by well-meaning individuals, no doubt - that it must abandon the gospel and embrace the unbiblical teaching. If it insists on the gospel, the church will fade into irrelevance. But if we just stop insisting on Biblical truth and embrace the current prevailing worldview/fad, well, the church will really be strong and be able to reach a lot of people!

So here's the question I have for them. Let's just say we do create the perfect Christian/postmodern blend they want, and we reach a lot of people with it. What exactly are we reaching them with? Because it sure isn't the gospel. And if the gospel is true, abandoning it to "reach" them just leaves them in their sin and under God's wrath. So what, exactly, is the point of doing so?

Logically, there are only three possible reasons someone would suggest setting aside the gospel in this manner.
(1) They don't believe the gospel is true. This is no doubt the case for some if not all of them. For instance, it's really hard to believe that Brian McLaren actually believes pretty much any part of the gospel, let alone the whole thing. Of course, given the pomo view of truth, it's tough to say that any of the emerg*s actually believe anything.
(2) They don't believe it's important. I guess it's possible that someone believes the gospel, but just doesn't think it's significant enough to be beyond compromise. I'm not sure how someone could actually believe the gospel - that we are sinners facing God's wrath, who can only be reconciled to God by embracing the life, sacrifice, and resurrection of Jesus on our behalf, resulting in a life of increasing holiness and faithful endurance to the end even in the face of persecution, and that all who reject the Son and persist in rebellion face eternal conscious torment in hell, but those who through God's grace embrace the Son receive eternal joy with God in heaven - then decide that it's not really all that important, and we can negotiate it away for a good enough offer. The position I guess exists logically, although I would suggest that anyone who would fit here really fits #1.
(3) They are more concerned with personal gain/power. In this position, someone is convinced that the gospel is true, that it's the only hope for people about to be on the receiving end of God's eternal wrath - but they would rather have a full church or sell some books or something. The wickedness of this position is unspeakable.

The idea that the church needs to embrace the latest cultural trend, even though it means abandoning the gospel, is presented by many as the loving way. But upon even cursory analysis, it's obvious that it's either a total lack of faith in the gospel, or an utterly wicked decision to grab personal status at the cost of their souls. There is absolutely nothing loving about abandoning or compromising the gospel. At best it's a sign that the person doing so is still lost in their own sin; at worst it's a sign that they're both lost and really hate people with unspeakable hate. When politicians talk about doing this, it's ridiculous. When people ostensibly representing the church do so, it's a reprehensible evil.

Illinois Politics, Makin' Us Proud!

Whoo! Illinois, baby!

The news broke today that our illustrious governor, Rod Blagojevich, was arrested in a corruption investigation. This was surprising news - surprising that it took this long. When I first moved to Chicago over two years ago, the very first day there was a news report about the governor being investigated for corruption. In the meantime, there have been other high-profile arrests and convictions for people very close to Blogo, and it seemed like every couple weeks new details broke about an investigation into an "unnamed public official" who could only have been the governor. So yeah, Blogo getting arrested for corruption - it's news along the lines of "water is wet" and "the sun rises in the east". All this story needs now is the typical "This isn't the Rod Blagojevich I thought I knew" speech from Th'Obama for some closure.

I realize this may be surprising to those who don't know the history of Illinois politics in general and Chicago in particular, but the government here is a truly spectacular blend of corruption and incompetence. Consider what the local political stories have been in just the past few weeks:

1) Our illustrious governor Blagojevich and truly wonderful senator Durbin [/sarcasm] leading the charge for President Bush to commute the sentence of former governor George Ryan. Why is Ryan in jail? Corruption, of course. What got him caught was an investigation into the sale of commercial driving licenses - as secretary of state, he sold them to trucking companies so they could distribute them to whomever they pleased. When one of the illegal truckers caused an accident that killed a family, the trail eventually was traced to then-governor Ryan (uncovering a lot of other stuff along the way, of course).

So Blogo has been pushing for him to be pardoned - not in any way hoping to set a precedent of leniency for corrupt governors, of course. Durbin, of course, once famously on the Senate floor accused American soldiers of being worse than Nazis, Stalin-era Communists, and the Khmer Rouge based on the unsubstantiated accusations (since shown to be entirely false) of terrorists. So naturally, when a governor has been shown beyond any doubt to be guilty of incredible corruption that actually killed, he pushes for extreme leniency (Ryan has served less than 15% of his sentence). Gotta have priorities, I guess.

2) The Cook County budget fiasco. Cook County recently raised sales taxes to the highest in the country - over 11% in some parts, over 10% everywhere. This was because of a massive budget shortfall, and in their infinite wisdom they decided that raising taxes again was the best way to make ends meet in a slowing economy. In other words, all the foresight of a goldfish. Anyway, the tax hike was supposed to raise around $460m that they needed. Their calculations assumed that spending habits would not change at all - again, total brilliance - so obviously they fell short, but still brought in an extra $380m or so, at the cost of driving off some business long-term. Stupid trade, but whatever.

Anyway, now comes the news that the $380m they raised is not just $80m short of the goal. Oh, no. It seems there were major mistakes in the budget, and they actually are still short by another $400m or so. Mistakes like, using numbers from the wrong years, or getting the police and parks departments mixed up, that sort of thing. Basic data entry errors. So many errors that they don't actually know how much money they need - they just know they don't have nearly enough, so we need to raise taxes or costs of other services again. So many errors that they won't even release a copy of this year's budget (!), because it wouldn't make sense. Just give us money and don't ask where it's going. Also, never mind that the people doing the budget are close friends relatives of Todd Stroger, the head of the county board. Nope, no nepotism here. And in no way was all that money wasted or spent illegally - which of course can easily be shown once the accounting gets corrected, which will never happen. This is so bold it should be unbelievable. Unfortunately, it's basically par for the course.

Obviously, a few months ago there was also the Tony Rezko scandal. For those who don't know, which will include most anyone who got election news from mainstream media, the short version is that Rezko is a Chicago-based businessman who made a fortune in real estate and used it to buy politicians. He was recently convicted on corruption and extortion charges in a trial in which an unnamed public official was prominently featured (today's news takes the probability of it being Blogo from about 98% to 99.999%). Basically this guy (along with the co-defendant who flipped, Stuart Levine) was buying favors from anyone he could get ahold of. In a completely unrelated incident, he was involved in a real estate deal with a then-unknown Chicago politician who got the better end by hundreds of thousands of dollars, contributed bunches to this fledgling politician's campaigns at the beginning of his career, and then that politician directed millions of public funds to Rezko's projects. But fortunately, there was nothing there worth investigating, or our diligent media surely would have been all over that.

So anyway, back to Blogo. What's stunning obviously isn't that a Chicago politician is corrupt. It's hard to find one that isn't. What's amazing about these reports is how bold he was about it. Blatantly selling the remainder of The Obama's senate term to the highest bidder - including taking offers over the phone - is about as brazen as you can get, especially since he had to know how closely this process would be watched, and with so many suspicions surrounding him already. The issue that really gets me is the extortion of the children's hospital. Basically, the state had money allocated to the hospital, and the governor let them know that he would block payment until the hospital's CEO gave him $50k. That's just wicked beyond words.

So what's the point of all this? It's a grim reminder of the reality of politics. Putting our hope in these guys is a losing proposition. When Christians misplace their faith, and view the party or a politician as savior or curer of the world's ills, it's foolish beyond description. The government - any government - is a means of common grace to help restrain evil. When it functions well, it can be great. But all earthly governments are subject to corruption and folly, because all are made of foolish, corrupt people.

But this further shows just how wicked we are. It would be nice to think that Blagojevich is an extreme case of human corruption, that we're mostly good and he just somehow hopped on the evil train. The reality is, we are all capable of his actions - or worse - if given the opportunity. If not for the grace of God - including common grace that acts to restrain such evil - the world would be utterly unlivable due to our wickedness. Those of us in Christ have only the grace of God to thank for making us alive and bringing about righteousness in us. And those not in Christ still have the grace of God to thank for not letting them do all the evil that is in their hearts. Let's take some time to thank God that openly, brazenly corrupt leaders like Blagojevich are still the exception rather than the rule.

The Church, Politics, and the Sins of Jeroboam

A few weeks ago, the woman and I joined about 170 of our closest friends on a trip to Israel. We left the day after the election, so obviously politics was a fairly prominent topic at the time. I had been thinking about politics quite a bit, specifically the role we as Christians should play - when political alliances are advisable and when they lead to compromise, how much energy should we divert to legislative efforts, etc. On this topic, I highly recommend the politics series at TeamPyro, particularly the posts by the great Phil Johnson. In fact, your time would probably be better spent reading those than reading this.

For those who are for some reason still with me, there were a few sites we visited in Israel that really shed some light on this issue. The first of these was at the far northern edge of Israel at the ancient city of Dan.

The site pictured here is the remains of the temple erected by Jeroboam. Many more pictures of this site are available at this here Facebook album. I found this to be one of the most moving places we visited, a place where history I'd read so much about really came alive. This is the site where Jeroboam built a temple and put in a golden calf (which has been found), and led Israel to worship it. This false worship became such an institutionalized sin for Israel that every king that followed until they were destroyed by Assyria had an indictment like this against him: "He did not depart all his days from all the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, which he made Israel to sin." In fact, in explaining why God brought Assyria to destroy Israel, this is how the author summarizes the three hundred years or so of the northern kingdom:

When he had torn Israel from the house of David, they made Jeroboam the son of Nebat king. And Jeroboam drove Israel from following the LORD and made them commit great sin. The people of Israel walked in all the sins that Jeroboam did. They did not depart from them, until the LORD removed Israel out of his sight, as he had spoken by all his servants the prophets. So Israel was exiled from their own land to Assyria until this day. (2 Kings 17:21-23)

In other words, the Jeroboam's sin was pretty spectacular. Jeroboam was the first king of the northern kingdom, and every single king after him led Israel in the same sin. And it was bad enough sin that God deemed it worth destroying the kingdom and scattering the tribes among the nations. What was his sin, and why was it so offensive to God? And how did he get the idea to do it?

The Background

To see what this is all about, a very brief history lesson is in order. Israel had settled in the Promised Land, and wanted a king. The first king was Saul, a man who would be the world's choice, man's choice. God rejected him, and annointed one after his own heart: David. As David was a godly king, God made a covenant with him, to establish his kingdom forever. David's son Solomon followed him, and started out as a wise and wonderful king, including building a magnificent temple to God in Jerusalem. But Solomon married a bunch of foreign women who each had their own gods, and Solomon sinned in allowing them to worship these false gods, and even joining them in it. After enjoying peace for most of his reign, Solomon then began to face adversaries God raised up for him as punishment for his wandering. One of these adversaries was Jeroboam the son of Nebat. The prophet Ahijah was sent to Jeroboam with this message from God:

"Take for yourself ten pieces, for thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'Behold, I am about to tear the kingdom from the hand of Solomon and will give you ten tribes (but he shall have one tribe, for the sake of my servant David and for the sake of Jerusalem, the city that I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel), because they have forsaken me and worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of Moab, and Milcom the god of the Ammonites, and they have not walked in my ways, doing what is right in my sight and keeping my statutes and my rules, as David his father did. Nevertheless, I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand, but I will make him ruler all the days of his life, for the sake of David my servant whom I chose, who kept my commandments and my statutes. But I will take the kingdom out of his son’s hand and will give it to you, ten tribes. Yet to his son I will give one tribe, that David my servant may always have a lamp before me in Jerusalem, the city where I have chosen to put my name. And I will take you, and you shall reign over all that your soul desires, and you shall be king over Israel. And if you will listen to all that I command you, and will walk in my ways, and do what is right in my eyes by keeping my statutes and my commandments, as David my servant did, I will be with you and will build you a sure house, as I built for David, and I will give Israel to you. And I will afflict the offspring of David because of this, but not forever.'"

So God promised to divide the kingdom, leaving part with David's descendants, but giving part to Jeroboam. Solomon tried to have Jeroboam killed, but he fled to Egypt, returning to Israel when Solomon died and stirring up the people. When Solomon's idiot son Rehoboam infuriated the people for no good reason, they rebelled and set Jeroboam over them as king (1 Kings 12).

The Fatal Decision

Jeroboam was in a great place. He was newly appointed king of Israel, and he had a clear word from God as to what he should do, and very clear promise of blessing if he did it. He had been told very explicitly why he had been given the kingdom - that Solomon had let his heart wander from God and to false gods. And he was told in no uncertain terms that if he just followed God, he would be blessed and his kingdom would be established forever. Follow God = very good, turn from God = very, very bad.

So what is the very first thing he does as king? Knowing that God will bless him beyond imagination if he worships him fully, and just tore the kingdom from Solomon (like five minutes ago!) because he worshipped other gods, what does Jeroboam decide to do? Let's see:

And Jeroboam said in his heart, "Now the kingdom will turn back to the house of David. If this people go up to offer sacrifices in the temple of the LORD at Jerusalem, then the heart of this people will turn again to their lord, to Rehoboam king of Judah, and they will kill me and return to Rehoboam king of Judah." So the king took counsel and made two calves of gold. And he said to the people, "You have gone up to Jerusalem long enough. Behold your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt." And he set one in Bethel, and the other he put in Dan. Then this thing became a sin, for the people went as far as Dan to be before one. He also made temples on high places and appointed priests from among all the people, who were not of the Levites. And Jeroboam appointed a feast on the fifteenth day of the eighth month like the feast that was in Judah, and he offered sacrifices on the altar. So he did in Bethel, sacrificing to the calves that he made. And he placed in Bethel the priests of the high places that he had made. He went up to the altar that he had made in Bethel on the fifteenth day in the eighth month, in the month that he had devised from his own heart. And he instituted a feast for the people of Israel and went up to the altar to make offerings. (1 Kings 12:26-33)

Egads. Knowing full well that he only has the kingdom because the previous administration had allowed idol worship, the first thing Jeroboam does is make two golden calves and tell the people to worship them! He set one at Bethel (near the southern boundary of his kingdom) and the other at Dan (in the far north, continuing Dan's awful history of idol worship (see Judges 18)) so his nation would be bounded by idols. He even used the same words as Aaron when he made the golden calf - excuse me, when they threw the gold in the fire and the calf just came out! - when Moses was out of sight for a few days after performing amazing miracles to deliver Israel from Egypt (Exodus 32). The sin is obviously totally faithless, but it's still shocking to see how brazen Jeroboam was with it.

Notice what else Jeroboam did. He didn't just make idols and tell the people to worship them. He set up his own priesthood, including people from all tribes, not just Levites. Our tour guide is in the line of possible priests, and when discussing this part of the story, he got the most animated we ever saw him. This part - making non-Levites to be priests - was amazingly offensive to him, and it would have been a gross insult to God as well. Further, he established his own feast, on the 15th day of the 8th month. This was meant to imitate the God-ordained feasts of passover (15th day of 1st month) and/or the feast of booths (15th of the 7th). He set up an entire religion that imitated the true faith, but was intentionally off in the important points. Doing this was gross sin, and it's what he will always be remembered for.

So What Does This Have To Do With Politics?

I started off by saying this blatant sin was very illuminating regarding mixing the church and politics. How? Let's look again briefly at why Jeroboam did what he did.

And Jeroboam said in his heart, "Now the kingdom will turn back to the house of David. If this people go up to offer sacrifices in the temple of the LORD at Jerusalem, then the heart of this people will turn again to their lord, to Rehoboam king of Judah, and they will kill me and return to Rehoboam king of Judah."

What was it that drove Jeroboam to commit this grave sin, to spurn the clear command and unimaginably great promise of God, and to doom his nation to destruction and exile? Politics! Specifically, it was fear of losing his own power and influence (and life!) that led him to despise God and intentionally, spectacularly sin.

Jeroboam was extremely short-sighted and faithless in this regard, and it led to extreme wickedness. He knew God had given him this kingdom because of Solomon's idolatry, and that obedience would bring tremendous blessing. But he evidently didn't believe what God had clearly told him. Instead, he looked at the short-term immediate future, and did the calculations from a godless worldview.

He knew that his people would continue to go to Jerusalem - in Rehoboam's kingdom - to worship God. Jews were required to go there annually (possibly thrice a year) to celebrate a feast and offer sacrifices, and being in a different kingdom didn't grant an exception. He thought with all his secular reasoning that if his people kept going to Jerusalem to worship God, they would be drawn back to Rehoboam's kingdom and turn on him. He was afraid that as people truly worshipped God, his own power would weaken, and eventually he'd be killed. So wrongly believing himself to be faced with the choice between his own power and the gospel, he chose his own power. He intentionally abandoned the gospel and set up a false religion - but one that intenionally mirrored the true gospel, of course - in order to prevent people from worshipping God, because he wickedly believed that their true faith would damage him personally.

So What Does That Have To Do With Us Today?

But this doesn't happen today, of course. Nobody is making golden calves and telling us to worship them instead of God in order to enhance their own power. Or do they?

See, one of the things which came out frequently during the runup to the election, especially during the Pyro series on politics and Dan Phillips' excellent political reporting at his blog, is just how hard it is to find someone who forms political alliances without sacrificing the gospel. Phil Johnson especially has made this challenge repeatedly - name one person today who is successfully both faithfully proclaiming the gospel and leading a political effort - and the silence has been deafening. The counter examples, of those who intentionally compromise the gospel to advance a political agenda, are numerous. To name a few from both sides of the aisle:

• When James Dobson raises tons of money for "ministry", and spends every last dime of it on politicking, and goes years without proclaiming the full gospel in print, interview, his daily radio show, etc (beyond an ecumenical "you need Jesus" that even Mormons can affirm), it has shades of Jeroboam.
• When the many conservative evangelical groups working for good causes like eliminating abortion or honoring marriage refrain from proclaiming the gospel because it would offend the Catholics, Mormons, and secular people in their coalition, it shows a lack of faith reminiscent of the son of Nebat.
• When Tony Campolo promote a horribly insufficient view of scripture (and even promote a naive, uncritical interpretation of that) in order to make it sound like the Bible promotes the liberal social agenda, and thereby intentionally hides the true gospel behind the pale imitation of the social gospel, he might as well just make a golden calf.
• When people like Jim Wallis volunteer to be useful idiots for the left, pretending to speak as Biblical Christians while merely parroting the DNC talking points, they fill the role of the non-Levitical priests.
• When Brian MacLaren - you know what, MacLaren's such a heretic, I don't even know where to begin. At this point he's not even making a pretense anymore, and is a wolf in wolf's clothing. It's like he's trying to see how blatant he can get and still be considered a "Christian".

When people try to mix the gospel with their political ideology, the gospel is always what is compromised. We are called to work for the good of our city, and to be good citizens (Christians should be the best citizens out there), to pray for our leaders and pay taxes and all that. And if called, certainly no Christian should shy away from political office. But in politics, as in all of life, if forced to make a choice between faithfulness to the gospel and success, we must always choose the gospel. Jeroboam faced this choice and chose tragedy, and so many today sadly follow in his footsteps.